tv [untitled] July 9, 2013 6:00am-6:31am PDT
that might have been the rationale, i honestly don't think that it was thought through. >> okay. >> and what capacity are you before us? right now? >> i am sorry? >> in what capacity? are you here as an individual? are you here representing the arts commission? >> i am the director of communications and i represent the arts commission with on sunshine requests or sunshine related requests and i did respond to this order of determination, and i was party to the responses for some of these cards. and was one of the individuals who consulted with the city attorney with regard to the right of privacy and have been involved with this particular case in an early stage. >> who authorized you to be here? >> the director of cultural, and it is part of my job description to represent the agency on sunshine-related
matters. >> i don't have anything further. >> questions? >> i was just wondering if you just have the new card? >> i don't have the new card, but i can tell you what it says now. i did mention somewhere but i think that i was rushing through it. okay, it says now, you are not required to complete this card in order to make a public comment and you may speak anonymously if you wish and it does not have a line to addresses. >> so it is the main subject matter if you choose to. >> yes. >> exactly. >> okay. >> i am sorry, i did have one other question. so miss patterson, i have in our packet at least we have e-mails. >> yes. >> and it shows on december 15th, 2011, at 3:48 p.m. an idr was made, and the response was
received monday december 19th, 2011. so then, do you dispute that this was untimely? >> no, i don't. >> thank you. >> i mean just to be clear, though, there were some things that did not exist. so those were not provided. >> further questions? >> just to be clear. they did not exist because they were communication to say this they did not exist. >> yes, there was. >> but that communication was untimely. you agree that was untimely. >> if we failed to respond within the 24-hour period at the end of the business day the following day then yes, it was untimely. >> okay. >> one more question. >> yes. >> have you been designated the custodian of the public records for the arts commission? >> i don't have that official title, let's just say that we did a lot of sunshine requests, and they all kind of funnel through me and i over see
responses and monitor a sunshine request log that we have on file. but i do not the keeper of all of the records, each individual program keeps their own records and is responsible for drafting initial responses to sunshine requests and for gathering records. >> but occasionally i will work in that capacity. we will just share it. >> is someone or multiple people, are there other people in the agency who have the designation of custodian of public records? >> no >> i don't want to presume that it needs to be granted it may be that it is a fact and not an assignment. but i just wanted to ask if the agency has... >> no, we are a small agency and there is no one with that title at our agency. >> and maybe in addition to another title, but i appreciate your answer. >> thank you. >> yes.
>> any further questions? >> public comment? >> i had a couple of questions for mr. warfield, if that is okay? >> yes. mr. warfield? >> mr. warfield, on what basis do you think the address information of the individuals is valuable to be in the public record? >> this whole matter was part of multiple violations against the arts commission and the library commission over their interest in the destruction of the burnable heights mural, a 30-year old mural created by the community that had a
considerable historic and and arts value that they were intent on destroying. and i hope that you did not understand, some of the speaker cards they said they didn't have, and there was a secret when there are redactions, which i got the material it was electronic and when i came to the office to inspect the speaker cards. they tried to fool me. there was no indication that on most of them a quick look would not indicate that there was something missing, they had pasted over something white, and so you could not see that there was something redacted.
as far as i am concerned, i don't have to say why i want something. and it is the obligation of a public record holder to provide the information and if they don't provide it why it was withheld. if you are asking me why am interested? i am always interested in a complete record for a range of reasons it might not be the address but most people who come to a public meeting will be happy if someone who knew something or was in agreement or possibly disagreement with them, would be able to approach
them as you can do in a real place and since i was not present in those meetings, and aracterizing without anybody seeing it independently, she is call it private, how do we know that? there were people there, i believe, from organizations who would be happy. it was the reason to get in touch with anybody who spoke on that issue at the meetings where the mural destruction was under discussion, they did not want the truth coming from me and possibly reaching to anybody else.
what i am having a hard time figuring out is if you have a name and you have a business address and it does not exist and what is the additional public policy basis for meeting someone's home address on a daoult document like tha. >> you don't know whether i got any business addresses and we don't know how. i don't any any of the redacted addresses. i don't know if there were phone numbers or home addresses. i don't believe that there is a horrible, and i don't consider addresses private, i consider your medical record and
someone's psychological record, i consider that private and millions of people have their names and their phone numbers and their addresses in the phone book, and if they are worried about someone reaching them who they don't want, there is a whole range of ways that we have in our society of saying to people, please, i don't want to hear, about this any more, i don't want to hear from you any more, don't send me anything any more and finally, legal, stay away orders and all kinds of ways in which people can get. but the address, where millions have posted for decades there are a million places that you
can go to find out somebody's address, and that is not something personal. and we don't know what they redacted because they have never shown anybody outside of that department as far as i know, or certainly not anybody who is reviewing this, so we don't know what they redacted. and i don't think that they have a right to do it. the board of supervisors has a thing saying... >> okay, thank you. >> you have answered my question. >> any further questions or comments? >> commissioner andrews? >> i am hearing mr. warfield what you are talking about and there is an assumption and the legal standing i will leave to the lawyers to really flesh out. but there is kind of an assumption that somebody works with good will and either agree with me or you will politely disagree with me. but you could understand with
some caution to the not so private individual takes that information and something not so great happens with it within reason of redacting those addresses you are really protecting the privacy of a lot of folks and possibly mitt indicating some kind of harm that may come to them. >> this is a particular issue that has two sides to it that often can have a heated component to it and i appreciate that you will want to find either advocates on a particular issue or talk on the opposition about it but i will be nervous that my address is out there and people can have it and do whatever they wanted to it. >> first of all the sunshine ordinance and the record act have very specific statements in the case of the public records act going on for page
after page for police officers, judges, and psychological record, and medical records, they are very specific about what may be redacted or must be redacted. the address of somebody, whether it is the street address is not one of those things, if you go to the property office, anybody owning property is listed there and at their address and this is an argument of par noya, and if you are worried about someone who will be stab to death, maybe you should have a meeting as a secret. >> maybe if you publish the room, someone might come in here and do something bad and it is a paranoya argument that has no end. it is never ending, the law
says what may be redacted. and the law does not say that this material can be redacted. and other bodies recognize that, for example, the board of supervisors say that if you give this to us it is a public record and they do the same on the agenda so that the people will know if you send us a letter, don't include something that you don't want the public to see. keep off our address, or hand it in without any mailing address whatever you want. but whatever you give us is a public record. and that is the law. >> thank you, mr. warfield. i think that you have explained your case. >> the question, before us, is in fact whether or not the san francisco arts commission is in violation of sunshine ordinance 67.25 a, for failure to respond in a timely manner, for failure to keep withholding to a minimum by providing unredacted speaker cards and for failure
to justify withholding the redacted information. any further comments from the commission? >> commissioner studley? >> i am struggling with this issue about who the respondent is. and now, i'm confused. i recognized the gravity of the distinction as commissioner hur pointed out. and tried to think about the consequences related to whether the agency typically is or should be represented by whether it is custodian or the person who is in fact the custodian of the records and so i don't think that there is a situation given the responsibility that in this agency goes along with being the director of communication and it is not a stray, junior, and employee who showed up
yesterday. and who in the parade of horribles that we heard is taking the rap for the you know, the delay and the alleged willful failure and keep the withholding to a minimum. that said i am not sure what to do with it. so i would appreciate hearing from the other commissioners in the staff whether they think that is in fact what we are doing here. or whether we are following the referal that we received even though the language has changed from the arts commission to respondent kate patterson of the arts commission or whether this is something that we ought to send back for reflection on that issue. or other s which i am not yet thinking of. >> you are talking about sending it back in a sense on a technicality? >> because we also have a variety of people representing their commission whether it was
sue blackman, this evening, representing the library commission. >> and part of what i am asking is whether the complainant and in turn with sunshine task force, as the people who initiate and then refer to the case to us, whether they have the not the responsibility but the authority to frame who the respondent is. and there are differences. it is not just the technicality, there are differences in both the standard and the consequences with which we find it. and so i think that it is, this is not, you know, misspelling of somebody's name, it is a different player and while, the agency can always, and there are some legal issues here, what is a commission? and who speaks for a commission in what way, that i don't have
the information before me to what we have assess $what i know is that the library users association which can't act except by some individual or individuals, you know, making it a type of document or file a complaint or alleging that an organization did something. and that organization decides in those strange corporate ways who will speak for it. is it the head of the agency or the custodian record? is it someone else who is available on monday night to come and speak on behalf of that agency but those things have consequences but noim just not hur, whether it is fatal to our consideration in this format. that it does not track the sunshine, or the complaint and the sunshine task force referal to us. >> so i am really interesting my fellow commissioners to help with this. >> as i recall when there was a
complaint against the park and rec department it was against ginsberg who was ahead and against one of the board members. >> and it seemed to me that here,... >> was it against them, or was it against park and rec and they... >> they were named personally. >> okay. >> as i recall, in the proceedings, they appeared personally, because they were charged. >> and here, i would think that if there is any evidence that miss patterson was instructed to do something by someone at the arts commission, that if she acted in her capacity as whatever her employment was, she acted in it and it is really the... i think that it
is not the figment of the arts commission. it is the employee who had the responsibility and who reacted in a certain way. >> i think that i largely agree with that. except that i would be a little bit more general. i think that if you sent, the commission has the freedom in my mind to send a representative to this meeting. and as long as that person has knowledge, and could help us in the process and has the authority to bind the commission and i am not as concern as precisely. whether it is the custodian of the records and i think that under any of those standards that miss patterson would meet that requirement here. and and i don't think that it is a department head violation that should be under three and that is a chapter three violation to which the sunshine
task force deference >> maybe i have questions for miss patterson, or the agency head. failing to respond to an immediate disclosure request in a timely manner, i certainly thing think and i have heard, someone gets the request and you notice it and get it done by cod the next day, is it? or you don't. and that sounds like an individual action or failure to act. willful failure to comply with the order of determination, i don't know. and i don't know if i should care. or where that decision was made. i don't know whether and i hate to personalize it so much. but that is where we are, whether miss patterson said, notwithstanding those considerations, i am deciding that these privacy controls mean that we should not provide
that information, even though the sunshine task force says that we should. or whether the agency head is saying i understand that you did not provide them in the first place but now that we have an order from another city, body, saying that we ought to, does that move out to the agency taking responsibility for determining what the privacy issue is? my knowledge of organization behavior suggests that the agency had maybe been involved. that the agency had or may be involved. i am interested in the gentleman that probably know more about the organizational and corporate responsibility and there is a fact question that we may want to ask and they both seem eager to say something. >> would i say that, i see your point. and i think that if we were to find that there was such a violation, it would not be against miss patterson herself.
if the arts commission said that who is miss patterson and we didn't think that she is coming to represent us. we would be binding the artses commission and not her personally. >> that does not seem to be the words that are in front of us or the respondent violated in three ways, i heard her say, i violated and i missed the deadline and that is my bad. and that is one piece of it. this is the difference between the march 7th referal from the sunshine task force, am i right that march and not the previous
april is a controlling one and then our own memo putting it in front of us, and maybe, maybe that is just informal guidance and we change and we can go back and make a motion that says, we do or do not find miss patterson responsible for whatever of the three things that we think that she might be responsible for. and i say that because she has stepped up to one of them. and but as to the other two, whether we have given the papers in front of us can we find the arts commission responsible if that is our determination two or three. >> what is the march 7th letter. >> the user's association and the defendant ant is the arts commission. >> right. >> and so, i think that we could fine the arts commission, by. >> right. and i am talking about this, so maybe we just don't track this,
that is, and mr. warfield's comments and maybe this is not, this is just a description or a summary for us and we ignore that and i think that we go back to the referal and we develop whatever motions we want in which case we could hear it tonight unless for another reason we decided not to. >> and that might answer my question and mr. warfield's that we operate on the basis of the referal and not the staff memo. would that... i would be interested in mr. warfield's thought on that one. >> if we return back to the referal as a complaint by the library users association against the arts commission? is that what you are urging us to do as a better procedural stance? >> yes. but that would require you to use a different portion of your rules and i did forget commissioner hur that under section three, not only would
you be much more able to recognize who is the responsible party, mainly the art commission head. but, there is also a provision for staff investigation, which is not the case for a chapter two, repeating, so there is a whole different procedure that you have, with respect to these matters. and the other thing is that i would like the record to be clear. i think that mr. st. croix's memo completely confuses matters and then the agenda packet, makes it look as although everything was kosher when it was not. you have talked about it, i mean, look at the e-mails i was writing on behalf of the library users association, to whom, the secretary of the arts
commission. why? is poor miss patterson according to mr. st. croix the respondent of my complaint? read my complaint in here. it says, arts commission. so the whole thing is skewed and you are being distracted by a whole bunch of questions in the midst of all of the subnative questions because mr. st. croix has framed it as one individual against another individual and that is just wrong on every level including as i said, your own staff doing the reach and presumably some, i don't know what you call it, some efforts and so i think that this whole hearing is tainted by that whole mess and moves to be properly done. >> yes? >> hopefully, it can provide a little clarification as to why
mr. patterson was the named respondent. our regulation was responded do not allow us to name a agency, we have to name an individual, as a city officer or a employee to write down the complaint. and just to have committed the violation. and she was the complainant, and she was the only one named in the complaint and the staff has not permitted to us when they were not in the department head and the investigation, and he may or may not have the responsibility and if it requires, and that is something that she will consider as of now, and it says that it has to be a person is not an agency. >> and with that said, would you, because there are three different kinds of violations that are in here. and like miss patterson talked
about the fact that she missed a particular deadline and i think that covers that and i want to hear about the internal discussion that was had that ultimately led to the alleged allegations of two and three, like what conversations were had and were these and was the determination, and was the conversation between miss patterson and the city attorney's office was the department head a part of that meeting. >> thank you, for allowing me to clarify that. i first want to clarify that the failure to meet the idr was a failure on the part of the commission secretary who gathered those materials for mr. warfield. and you know, she did so, in consultation with myself and the director of the public art program and the director at the time, cd and so the conversations were basically, we all looked at each other and decided to conduct the city attorney on guidance on what to
do with the private information and i would say that the deciding factor was the advice of the city attorney on what to do with the private information rather than it being a decision made by the dekter specifically or the director of the public art program specifically. we just acted on the advice of the city attorney. and so, i did fail to respond to the order of determination in a timely fashion. so that is mea copa and so does that... >> does the commission know about it, were you reporting on a... >> yeah. >> on a basis of where you were with it. >> yeah, i mean, it was not that complex, i think that there were some e-mails that went back and forth about what to do and i think that there was a request made about the director if i recall correctly and i believe that mr. warfield has the e-mails to get advice from the city attorney. i did so and the sad vice was to redact the private
information. >> so, in the cc, what seemed to you you would just put somebody has to be ultimately in control. so in every cc, we should put the department head or the commission head, because they were knowledgeable of the activity that was happening. and the engagement that you were having with the city attorney. >> yes. >> the staff is not agreeing with that. you are shaking your head? >> the cc task commission and we are not naming the people and from the task force and so the order of the determination of the cc is okay, kate patterson and the referal of the cc, and that is where we are getting the information from and directly from the referal and so we are not just to eliminate and name the agency as the complainant or the respondent. >> that is what s